E 462 
.2 

.N69 P2 
Copy 1 



ADDRESS 



OF 



ompanioD Lt. Com'd'r JAMES PA[[K 



FORMERLY U. S. NAVY, 



BEFORE THE 



BOARD OK OKKICKRS OK THE 



NEW YORK COMMAI^DERY 



OF THE 



MILITARY mi\ OF THE LOYAL LEGION OF the U. S, 



IN THE MATTER OF THE 



IiivestigatiM i Cliarge ui 



AGAINST 



Companion WILLIAM S. ANDREWS, 



CAPTAIN U. S. VOLUNTEERS. 



.L.__ 



itary Order ofthe Loyal Legion 



OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Matter of Charges against Companion Captain William S. 

Andrews. 
U. S. Volunteers. 

In the investigation made by the so-called '•'■Lexow Comtnittee'''' 
of the Legislature of NeNv York, during the latter part of 1894, 
much testimoii}' was given reflecting on the integrity of Captain 
William S. Andrews, U. S. Volunteers, a Companion of the 
Kew York Commandery of the Military Order of the 
Loyal Legion of the United States. 

At the December meeting, 1894, of the Commandery, Com- 
panion Andrews called attention to this testimony ; and asked 
that the Board of Officers should be instructed to investigate the 
charges that had been thus made against liim, and he pledged 
himself to withdraw at once from the Order, should the Board, 
after such investigation, deem him guilty. 

At the February meeting of the Commandery, the Board 
reported that no investigation could be made because no charges 
had been preferred. Thereupon, Companion James Parker 
preferred a charge of conduct unl)ecoming a gentleman, and 
Companion, with Four Specifications. 

The First Speciiication in substance was, that, being a Compan- 
ion of the Order, and at the same time a Commissioner of Excise 
of the City of New York, he had corruptly and in consideration of 
a payment to him of $500, voted to grant a license to a notorious 
place on Lafayette Avenue, New York, kept by one Louise 
Chaude, a house of bad character, known as "• Maison Tortoni." 

The Second Specification charged him with having falsely 
stated to the Board of Excise that Judge Andrew J. White had 
written a letter recommending the license of the "" Maison 
Tortoni " to one Louis, a butcher. 



2 

The Third Specification cliarged him witli having corruptly 
borrowed money during the time he was a Commissioner in 
charge of the Street Cleaning Bureau of the City of ]S"ew York, 
from contractors under him, owing duty as such to the city. 

The Fourth Specification cliarged him with having received 
from an old comrade a large sum of pension money, which he 
failed and refused to return ; and which he never repaid to the 
pensioner up to the time of his death, and still refuses to repay 
to his only child, the daughter of said pensioner, the amount 
being about $2,500. 

The Board carefully and patiently investigated these charges. 
Seventeen sessions were held. About 1,700 folios of testimony 
were taken. Nothing that Companion Andrews oifered in his 
defense was refused. 

After the testimony was all presented ; and he had summed 
up in a four or five hours' speech in his own behalf : — 

Companion James Parkek then addressed the Board as 
follows : 

Mr. Commander and Companions : I think we can all congrat- 
ulate ourselves that this long investigation is about to come to an 
end. I think we can all congratulate ourselves, also, that no 
avenue, from which any portion of truth bearing upon these 
charges could emanate, has been closed ; but that every oppor- 
tunity has been given to Companion Andrews to present any- 
thing which he thought calculated to maintain his side of tlie 
propositions. I have endeavored to be entirely fair to him. As 
I said at the outset, I have absolutely no feeling in regard to 
this matter. He was a stranger to me. I think I remember 
having seen him, somewhere, years ago, where I do not remem- 
ber ; but I certainly never knew who he was until he stood up 
there before the Commandery, on the night of the 5th of Decem- 
ber last, and, in a manly way, demanded that this Board should 
investigate these charges. 

We all know what a feeling of horror crept over us as we 
read in the newspapers that one of our Companions (who seemed 
to have put himself in such a position as his own testimony be- 
fore the Lexow Committee indicated he had once occupied) 
should have sat there in that chair, and told that terrible story 
which, if true, must forever bring disgrace upon him, a mem _ 
berof our honorable Order; and we felt a sense of indignation — 

^4( 



a strong feeling of indignation — that lie bad pnt it in tlie power 
of Mr. Golf, or anybody else, to turn to liini witb a sneer, and 
ask " Is tbat the button of the Loyal Legion that you have there, 
sirf And I felt a sense of pride in the Order to which we all 
belong, when he stood up in that manly way, and demanded 
that the Board should investigate, and say whether he had been 
guilty of those charges which had been made ; and when he 
pledged himself to withdraw at once from the Order, if the 
Board should so consider, after such investigation. 

I do not purpose to go over the whole of this testimony in 
detail. There are volumes of it lying there before you, which I 
think totally irrelevant to the issues ; but the facts of the case, 
it seems to me, are plain enough. 

The conclusions to be drawn from the testimony as given, are 
for you to draw; and it is for me only to call your attention to 
the proofs of those facts, and leave them clear before you. 

Let us go back to the first thing that is brought before us. 
Go back to that time in 1872, when Companion Andrews was 
arrested, and sent to a prison in New York, for failure to pay 
over money that the Court had adjudged to be in his hands as its 
receiver and its officer. He says he was arrested for contempt 
of court ; so he was ; but the contempt of court consisted in refus- 
ing to pay over tlie money which tlie Court had adjudged, after 
solemn investigation, was in his hands as its officer. Can there 
be any denial of that fact ? Let us read what he says himself, in 
his petitions and the atiidavits, the originals of which 1 have pro- 
duced here. See what he says ; see what the order of the Court 
says about the matter ; and then, when we have those papers, 
now twenty-three years old, standing there as sentinels to mark 
the facts of the case, we need not resort to the testimony of 
witnesses whose memory, as we all know, concerning events of 
that'remote day must necessarily be weak. 

First, we have the report of Winchester Britton, Referee, to 
the Supreme Court of the State of New York — " I do respect- 
" fully report, that said William S. Andrews, receiver, has dur- 
" ing his said receivership, received as such receiver the sum of 
" $12,617.27, and has, during said period, disbursed as such 
" receiver the sum of $8,441.47, leaving due |4,175.80. I do 
" further allow to the said Andrews as a fair and just compensa- 



" tion for liis services as such receiver, being for the period of 
" thirty-eight weeks ending on the 28th day of Jannary, 1 872, 
" the snm of it^50 per week, making in tlie aggregate the snni of 
" $1,90(». I do further make and state the accounts as per 
" statement hereto annexed, and made a jjart of my report ; and 
" I do iind that tliere remains in Ms hands (tiie hands of Com- 
" panion Andrews) to he accounted for ^ the snm of %'2^275.80r 

And then follows the account. 

Then the Supreme Court takes up the story. On the -ith of 
April, 1872, an order was entered as follows : " On reading and 
" filing tlie orders to show cause herein dated March 27th, 1872, 
" and the papers on whicli the same was granted as mentioned 
" therein, after hearing Mr. North as counsel for John H. Piatt, 
" assignee in bankruptcy, and reading the affidavits of Chauncey 
'• Shaefer, Louis M. Doscher and John H. Bergen, and liearing 
" Mr. Bergen, counsel for all the defendants who have appeared 
" in this action and Mr. Killian for the plaintiif, and reading 
" exceptions to the report of Winchester I]ritton and the testi- 
" mony taken Itefore him on the accounting before him, and 
" hearing Mr. Truax, counsel for William S. Andrews, receiver ; 
" on motion of C. M. Bangs, attorney for John IT. Platt, it is 
" Ordered : 

"That the report of Winchester Britton, Esq., dated March 
'• 5th, 1872, passing the accounts of Williarii S. Andrews as 
" receiver in this action be and the same is conjirmed.^' 

That clinches the fact, makes it indubitable until that order is 
revoked — and it never has been revoked — that, at the time that 
order was entered, as shown by Mr. Britton's report, there was in 
Companion Andrews' hands as receiver the sum of $2, 27 5. 80. 

" And it is further ordered,''' says the Court, " that the said 
" William S. Andrews, the receiver heretofore appointed in this 
" action, do forthwith pay to the said John II. Platt, as assignee 
" as aforesaid, the sum of $2,275.80, the amount which by the 
'' said report is found to be remaining in his hands as receiver 
" and also forthwith deliver to the said assignee all the property, 
" goods and chattels, choses in action, evidences of debt, etc." 

What is meant by that ? What is the use of bringing lawyers 
and witnesses here to exercise their uncertain memory as to facts 
which are so unquestionably set forth as they are in those papers. 



Now, the only question that remains is, has that amount, those 
funds decreed to be due and to be paid, heen paid ? Companion 
Andrews says it has. Mr. North, who was the counsel for the 
assignee in bankruptcy against him, who was to receive the 
money, says that it has not. Now, has it been paid \ Companion 
Andrews, as detailed to you by Mr. North, was given a reason, 
able time within which to pay. Having failed to do it, the 
orders of arrest for contempt were issued against him in August? 
1872, and given to the Sheriff— to tlie Sheriff", did I say — to three 
Sheriffs of three counties, who, as Mr. North testifies, exercised 
their ingenuity and skill in trying to find Companion Andrews, 
and did not succeed in getting him until the 4th of April, 1873. 

Here is the petition of Mr. Andrews from jail, dated April 16, 
1873. 

He represents that on tlie -Ith day of April he was " committed 
" to the common jail of New York County, in Ludlow street, iu 
'' the City of New York, where he ever since has been* and now 
" is confined." That he was so confined by an order of one of 
the justices of said Court sitting in Kings County, at a Special 
Term thereof, held on the 10th day of May, 1872 (eleven months 
previously) " by which Court your petitioner was adjudged to be 
" guilty of contempt of said Court, in his capacity as receiver, 
" for having refused, after proper demand thereto, to pay to John 
" H. Piatt a certain amount in conformity to an order to that 
" effect, dated on the 4tli day of April, 1872.'" You have all 
this before you. Then there was an endeavor on his part to show 
that he ought not to be called upon to pay this money. The 
story, as stated by Mr. Andrews, is that he had paid to his counsel 
money by orders of the Court, that the referee had not given 
him credit for. Why were nor, such orders filed ? Those of 
you who are here, who are lawyers, and those of you who are not 
lawyers, as men of common sense, know that when moneys are 
paid by Orders of Court, those orders stand until revoked ; and no 
Referee would have thought of denying a credit for an amount 
of money paid under an Order of Court. Why, he was the ofiicer 
of the Court, to enforce its will, this Referee was. It was his 
duty to say whether this receiver had any receipts or vouchers 
in payments of the money that had come into his hands ; to see 
if he had paid it out properly ; and to tell us here that Orders of 



6 

Court, autliurizing liim (Andrews) to pay moneys to liis counsel, 
would liave been set aside by any Referee, and no attention paid 
to them, is absurd. 

I am rather snrpi-ised that Companion Andrews, being a lawyer 
himself, should suggest such a thought. But he does not suggest 
anything of that kind in iliis petition from the jail. Oh ! no! 

Mr. Killiau's affidavit was produced here yesterday. It is here 
in evidence. I believe a portion of it was read. At any rate, I 
called attention to the fact that the reason why that first report 
of tlie referee was set aside, and re-opened and never tiled, or 
confirmed by the Court, was that it was a sort of snap judgment ; 
and those other interested parties came into court, and com- 
plained that they had not been heard. When they were heard, 
what was the result % It has been shown to you here. 

He goes on in his petition, and, after reciting this former 
report of the referee, he says : " That he was requested by said 
" referee to return to him said report, which your petitioner did, 
" and your petitioner afterwards learned that the said I'eferee 
" did afterwards on the 15th day of March, 1872, submit a 
" report in which lie found that there remained in your peti- 
" tioner's hands to be accounted for the sum of $2^75.80!''' 

It then goes on, " And the further fact that while the report 
" made on said 80th of January allowed your petitioner as com- 
" pensation for his services as such receiver from the date of his 
" appointment down to the 2L)th day of January the sum of 
" $3,400, the report confirmed on the 5th of March allowed your 
" petitioner as such compensation from the date of his apjjoint- 
" ment down to the 27tli day of January only the sum of $1,900." 
Making a diiference of some fifteen hundred dollars. 

It then goes on to recite the other proceedings that had 
been had. He then speaks about a notice of appeal from so 
much of the order, etc., and then, says: '' And your petitioner 
" further represents that he has not wilfully fai'ed to comply 
" with any order of court in the premises ; that having honestly 
" ex])ended the sum allowed by said referee on the 80th of 
" January, 1872, as above stated, he had not afterwards, nor has 
" he now the means or al)ility to comply with said order of April 
" 4tli, 1872 ; that he is dependent upon his own exertions for 
" the support of himself and family, and he has made no attempt 



" to "avoid tlie service of any process issued by this Court." He 
further represents that " since he gave notice of his appeal as 
" above stated, from said order of April 4tli, 1872, he has been 
" advised that he has no reasonable ground for expecting the 
"reversal of that order: and he therefore disclai'ins all intention 
" of further prosecuting said appeal.'''' 

And then he goes on : " And your petitioner further represents 
" that he has a family entirely dependent upon his personal 
" exertions for support. That for sometime past he has been 
" engaged in the business of a public lecturer, etc., and has 
" reasonable grounds for believing that if released from impris- 
" onment, so that he can carry on his business, he will be enabled 
" to pay the money which he had been heretofore ordered to pay. 
" That on the other hand, if he is kept confined, he will remain 
" permanently unable so to do." 

Then the testimony of Mr. North comes in, and he says that 
upon this petition being presented, setting forth that if he was 
kept in jail they would never get their money, he thought that 
the best way to get the money w^as to let him out, and they 
did so. 

Let us come down to the final order. He was released upon 
that petition, — upon Ids promise to pay that money,— SLud then, 
a long time having elapsed, and he not having paid it, a second 
order to show cause was granted against him, after hearing all 
the parties again. These were the conditions upon which he 
was released finally by the Court : 

" And it is further ordered that the said Andrews on the 
^^ 1st day of January, /<§7^, pay to the said Piatt, assignee as 
" aforesaid, the full sum of $1,'250, or on failure thereof show 
" cause to this Court at a special term thereof, to be held at the 
" Court house in the City of Brooklyn, on the first Monday of 
" January, 187^, why he should not be committed as for 
" contempt." 

" And it is further ordered that the said Andrews on the 
" 'iilth day of February, 187 If, pay to the said Piatt, assignee as 
" aforesaid, the further sum of $1,300, or on failure thereof, 
" show cause to this Court, etc., why he should not be committed 
^' as for contempt." 



8 

Now, a further order to show cause vdiy he should not again 
be arrested was granted on the 6th day of April, 1874 — 
another yea 

Capt. Andrews : From February to April is not a year. 

Capt. Parker: You were to pay on the first of January, 1874. 
that order was entered at a Special Term on the 7th of May, 187 3 y 
and then you were ordered to pay on the first of Jannary, ] 874, 
$1,250, or show cause, etc., and on the i27th of February, 1874,. 
to pay the further sum of $ 1 ,300, or show cause in March why 
you should not be committed. 

On the 6th of April, 1874, a further order was made upon an 
affidavit of Piatt setting forth that Andrews had not paid, a,nd 
that he had failed to j^erform and carry out certain terms and 
conditions of the order of May 7th, 1873, in that said Andrews 
had failed to pay to '"the said Piatt the sum of $'1,260 and the 
" stun of $1,300, which sums were required to be paid, and that 
" no part of said sums had been paid except the sum of $150 jKiid 
^^ hy the said Andrews, and the further sum of $600 paid hy 
" Richard W. Bleecher and Dion Thomas, two of the sureties of 
" the said Andrews, it is Ordered : that he show cause on Mon- 
" day the J^th day of May, 187 J^-, why the order by whicli he was- 
" committed should not be enforced against him." 

Upon the coming in of that order to show cause, such pro- 
ceedings were had, that Companion Andrews was released, not 
from the obligation to jpay the money, but from imprisonment^ 
&c., and in his affidavit upon which that release was made, he 
makes this statement, to which I call your attention. " Deponent 
" therefore prays this Honorable Court that he be relieved from 
" further attendance upon said order, and from further stress 
" herein, except that he shall pay to said Plait, at such times and 
" in suchanionnts as he may be enabled to pay, so much of the 
" the amount T)\]'E,from hifn as receiver herein, as may remain or 
" be uncollected from said sureties ($600 had been collected from 
" them). Deponent pledges himself to make the utmost exertion 
" to pay the amount due from him, as receiver herein, to said 
" Piatt without un7iecessary delay, and to incur no extravagant 
" or unnecessary expenses until said amount is paid.''"' 

And upon that petition, and their being no opposition to it : 
" It is now deemed by the Court that the said "William S. 
" Andrews in failing to comply with the order herein entered 



" May lltb, 1872, was not gvilty of any intentional contempt of 
" the court, and that the said William S. Andrews is hereby dis- 
" charged from the further operation of this order (not from ob- 
" ligation to pay the money), so far as his 2)ersonal liberty from 
'" arrest is concerned.'''' 

There that matter ended. So far as any evidence goes, not one 
penny of that money has ever been paid by Companion Andrews, 
and there I leave that proposition. 

This matter has been brought into this case because Companion 
Andrews himself suggested it. It occurred long befoi-e liis ad- 
mission to this Order, and I did not think in framing these 
•charges, any reference should be made to it ; but, inasmucli as he 
has referred to it, and courted investigation of it, and inasmuch as 
it bears upon his general reputation and character as a man, it is 
but fair that this prominence should be given to it. 

Such was the man who became a Commissioner of Excise of 
this city some years ago. The date is of no particular con- 
sequence. And that brings me now to the consideration of the 

FIRST SPECIFICATION OF THE CHARGE. 

What are the facts about that 'I 

Is there any doubt that Madam Chaude was the proprietress of 
that place " Maison Tortoni,"" and was licensed as such in 1S86 for 
one year "i None whatever. The license papers are here. Is 
there any doubt that, when her license expired in 1887, a renewal 
was refused upon the ground of the notoriously bad character of 
the house i Is there any doubt whatever of the notoriously bad 
character of the house ? Why, Companion Andrews has himself 
characterized it, right here, this evening, even as an " assig- 
nation house,-'' a '■^ hawdy honse,^'' and has endeavored to show and 
convince you and prevail upon you to believe that Mrs. Tondin- 
son came and got that "assignation house" and that "bawdy 
house," which, as he now claims, she knew to be of such charac- 
ter, licensed, because Madame Chaude had paid to her, or to her 
husband, live hundred dollars, upon the pretence of purchasing 
some stock in that Electric Company. There is no doubt about 
the character of that house. The characterization of the house on 
that refusal of the license to Lamberts, of itself shows that the 
house was a bad house, a notoriously bad house, and that Com- 
panion Andrews well knew that that was the character of the 



10 

liouse. We have it all in evidence here, and yon will find 
there the report made upon that place by Captain Williams, who 
was an Inspector at the time. We have, in the refusal of the 
Lamberts license. Companion Andrews' own statement, over his 
oivn signature, as to the character of the house. 

Here is a house, the license to which has been twice refused on 
account of its notoriously bad character and the notoriously bad 
character of the proprietress thereof, Companion Andrews on 
both occasions voting- for such refusal, and himself, over his own 
signature, stigmatizing the house as I have already stated. 

Now, M'hat happened ? Read the testimony before the Lexow 
Committee, offered in evidence here, and you will find his own 
statement of the case was, that one Louis came to him and rep- 
resented, 7iot that he was the proprietor of that establishment, 
but had been the hutcher who furnished ihe meat to it ; that a 
large bill was owing to him, and that he could not collect it, 
unless he could have this house licensed in his own name. 
Companion Andrews was examined pretty savagely about that, 
and about his motives for acting in that way, by Mr. Goff. It 
w^as a very startling statement for him to make, to admit that a 
man could come to him, a Commissioner of Excise, and say that 
he had been furnishing meats to a " ho\ise of assignation,''' a 
" hawdy housed that he had twice refused a license to, on those 
very grounds, that a man could come to him under such circum- 
stances, and say that was the reason why he wanted that house 
licensed in his name. The evidence is all there, and there is not 
any question about it. It is Companion Andrews' own state- 
ment under oath. 

Why this change of heart toward^; that place '{ When men 
so suddenly shift round— when a public olficer who has been 
faithful in the discharge of his duty up to a certain point, is sud- 
denly found willing to do the very things which, up to that 
moment, he would not do, because of the thoroughly bad 
character of the house, we naturally look for some motive. 
Why this change of heart ''. How did it come about ? His own 
testimony — the testimony he introduced — has relieved me 
from the necessity of corroborating Mrs. Tomlinson's statement 
that Mrs. Chaude paid to her. five hundred dollars. His own 
witness, Lamberts, Madame Chaude's bookkeeper, states that fact. 



11 

What Lamberts said as to what Mrs. Cliaude had said to him 
about Mr. Tomlinson is not evidence. I do not believe you 
gentlemen will regard it for a moment, and I do not believe you 
will regard anything that that man (Lamberts) says in this matter 
touching the character or standing of Mr. Tomlinson and Mrs. 
Tomlinson, in regard to that notorious house or their visits to it. 
I do not believe you will consider it for an instant when you 
consider the further fact that this man Lamberts came up 
before the Excise Board — and there is his own statement in 
evidence —and swore that he (and not Madame Chaude), was 
the proprietor of that place, and asked for a license for it on 
that ground. 

Major Odell : I do not think he swore in that application that 
he was the proprietor. 

Capt. Parker : Let it speak for itself. I do not wish to make 
any misrepresentation, but the paper speaks for itself. That 
man did make that application, and it does appear from Com- 
panion Andrews' own evidence that he appeared to be the book- 
keeper and not the proprietor of that place. 

Col. Suydam : Does not the application require the applicant 
to state who is interested in the property, and does he not say he 
is the only one ? 

Capt. Parker : He states who the owner of the fee is ; but he 
states also that he is the proprietor of that place. 

Col. Suydam : I do not think tlie word proprietor is used. 

Capt. Andrews : Interested in the business. 

Col. Suydam : He says he is the only one. 

Capt. Andrews : Interested in the business to be carried on ; 
that is, the business of selling liquor. 

Capt. Parker : The paper speaks for itself. I have only 
mentioned that fact as showing the character of this man Lam- 
berts. He was Madame Chaude's . agent to do her bidding, 
whatever that bidding was. He is the man who swears he has 
been for years getting Louis, tin; butcher, to make false state- 
ments, as to the ownership of that house, and himself paying 
the license fees for it out of the moneys of Madame Cliaude ; 
all the time Louis was pretending to be the owner of that place ; 
that Louis never paid a dollar ; that he always paid it from 
Madame Chaude's monevs. and for her. 



12 

Mrs. Toinlinson had that moiiej in her pocket for some pur- 
pose. Toil iiave seen her here. Every effort was made by 
Companion Andrews to break her down. Iler motherly feelings 
were outraged. The weaknesses that her children had displayed 
were brought before jou. They had nothing whatever to do with 
the case before you. Tliey were brought out here for some 
purpose ; and I must confess that it is about the only thing in 
this whole investigation that inspired me with a sense of indig- 
nation against Companion Andrews. Is it not bad enough that 
this poor woman's heart should have been torn hj the conduct 
of her children ? Why should it be thrown up to her, and di- 
rected at lier for no good purpose i I do not think the cause of 
the defence was helped in the slightest degree by that effort. 
And wlio did not feel his heart warm up towards that little 
woman, as she turned here one day, in indignation at the manner 
in which she was being questioned, rather than the matter ? I 
felt that she was going to exercise the woman's privilege of 
scratching the face of the man she thought had insulted her, and 
I was standing ready and willing to go between them, and, if 
uecessary, take the scratching myself. 

Companion Andrews has tried to make it appear in his address 
that Mrs. Tomlinson was a party to an attempt to bribe him. 
"Where is there any evidence of that ? Cannot a w^oman's feelings 
be worked upon by somebody who comes to ]ier and asks her to 
influence her husband to have justice done to her, and tells her 
that it would cost five hundred dollars to get a license :* What 
did Mrs. Tomlinson know about license fees ? She took the 
money and endeavored to exercise what influence she had, and 
the terms were that if the license was not procured, the money 
should be returned. In order to see that that money went 
safely into the hands of the party M'ho was to receive it (some- 
body, as she supposed, at the Excise Board), she went there with 
her husband ; and Cora])anion Andrews admits here that there is 
no doubt whatever in his mind that she stopped in front of 
that door, and saw her husband go into the room, wherein 
Companion Andrews was, she knowing he had the live hundred 
dollars in his pocket, and that when her husband came oat again 
he told liei- precisely what she says he did. 



13 

1 say the circumstances of tlie case are overwhelming in show- 
ing that her statement al)()ut the matter is true. She puts no 
stigma at all upon Companion Andrews. When that door closed 
upon Companion Andrews and her husband, then nhe does not 
pretend to say a word as to what occurred in that room except 
that she says that after consultation with him, with the five hun- 
dred dollars in his pocket, her husband came out and told her it 
was all right. And the event of a few days afterwards proved 

IT WAS ALL RIGHT. 

Companion Andrews devoted a large part of yesterday after- 
noon to statements made about his relations to Jacob Reis. I 
think you are all satisfied that Reis has been his factotum to do 
his bidding for the last fifteen or twenty years. Does he want 
the creditors of the Star company kept off ''i Reis kept the bank 
account. Does he want a convenient affidavit made in relation 
to something old Toplanyi says about somebody or another ? Reis 
is on hand to listen to the statement and make the affidavit. 

That is tlie bearing of what we have put in about Reis. It is 
to show that he was the man all the way through, who was ready 
to do the bidding of Mr. Andrews, and to come up to the neces- 
sities of the occasion, whatever they were. And that he was 
such a man, I think Companion Andrews demonstrated to you 
yesterday, when he produced here a lot of blank checks upon 
Reis' bank account, signed by Reis, which Companion Andrews 
is authorized in his own discretion to fill out. He was his book- 
keeper in the, iron concern. Yon will find Reis all the way 
through — Reis runs all the way through this whole matter, from 
the beginning to the end of it. If there is a transaction, which 
to any mortal man looks shady, Reis is in it. The evidence 
shows that clearly from the beginning to the end; and if the 
evidence had not shown it, I think the statement made by Com- 
panion Andrews yesterday, demonstrates it. 

Is ToMLiNSON TO BE BELiKVED i' Why should the action of 
this board be revoked ? Faithful Mr. Woodman is out of the 
way. He is sick. John Von Claim and William S. 
Andrews rule the hour. Reis, in addition to his private rela- 
tion to Companion Andrews, was one of the employes of this 
Board of Excise, one of its ofticers, and when they wanted a re- 
port as to the character of Louis, who was sent to make it ? Louis 



14 

can talk English ; he talked pi-etty plain English before the 
Lexow Committee. Lamberts can talk English ; we had no 
difficulty in understanding him here. It was not necessary to- 
send a man up there who understood French (as Andrews says 
Keis did) to find out whether Louis was really the proprietor of 
that place or not. AVho was sent ? This factotum, Jacob Reis, 
was the man who was appointed to go up there and come back 
and make the needed report. 

Suppose the theory upon which the Tomlinsons' statements 
proceed to be the true one ; wliat would be more natural than 
that this factotum, this man who had kept his bank account, and 
had been this convenient person through all these years, should 
be the man sent up there to make that investigation. Of course, 
in such event, what his rejK^rt was to be, was pre-arranged ; what 
more likely than that ? I will not say, because I do not know, any 
further than the testimony has put it before us all ; but I say 
that upon the theory that that story of the Tomlinsons is true, 
Companion Andrews did the eery thing you would naturally 
expect him to do under the circumstanies. He sent the man up^ 
there, upon whose fidelity to himself he could rely ; and whose 
report would be in accordance with what was desired under the 
circumstances. 

You have seen Mr. Tomlinson ; you have heard all the evi- 
dence about him ; you have heard his story ; he says that he gave: 
that five hundred dollars to Companion Andrews there that 
morning. When two men differ, when thei-e are conflicting 
statements, you take their characters into consideration, and you 
take the probabilities of the case also into consideration ; you 
take also the surrounding circumstances into consideration ; you 
look in this case to see if the result which Mrs. Tomlinson and 
Mr. Tomlinson anticipated, has been brought to pass ; and wdien 
you look at it from that standpoint, you see that the very thing 
that was promised has come to jjass. 

There has been a change of heart. The '' hawdy house "" and 
the " ass-k/nation house " have become clean. The butcher is in- 
stalled as the clean new man ; and we have here a decision of 
the Superior Court, made by Judge Gildersleeve, given to us by 
Companion Andrews to demonstrate that the Commissioners 
of Excise had no right whatever to refuse a license to a notori- 



15 

ons house of that sort, when the new applicant is a man of sonnd 
character. 

Does anybod}^ believe that it is possible that in one or two 
short months — one short month I think it was — from October 
to Kovember, in one short month there could have been such a 
change of heart in the persons of these Excise Commissioners; 
and that with regard to a place so notorious as that place has 
been, so notoriously bad as they had declared it to be, and that 
such change could be honest? Must not there have been some- 
thing else in the case ? 

I am not going to make any effort to bolster up Mr. Tomlin- 
son. You have heard the evidence. There has been a great 
deal of outside talk about his life. The slums seem to have been 
ransacked for the purpose of trying to find out something about 
him. but in vain, I think. They find that Mrs. Tomlinson was 
the bookkeeper for a concern which she says was perfectly hon- 
est; and because some scoundrel went to the Post-ofiice authori- 
ties, and made some charges against that concern, she is to be 
stigmatized as she has been. All J(er letters have been returned 
to her ; the lettei's that were sent to her as bookkeeper of this 
fraudulent concern, as it is called, have not been. There is nO' 
proof that the place was fraudulent beyond the fact that some- 
body had gone and told the Postmaster that it was. I could 
have brouo-hr the President of that concern here, and have had 
him tell what the character of the charge was, and I could have 
shown by him that the charge was perfectly baseless; but I did 
not think it was wortli while to impose upon you, and divert at- 
tention from the main issues here in any such way, and there- 
fore 1 desisted. With those remarks I leave that first specifica- 
tion, 

AS TO THE SECOND SPECIFIC ATIOK 

Now, is this specification proven ? If you believe that the 
first one is, you must necessarily believe that this one has been. 
What is the evidence about Judge White's letter i The Judge 
w^as brought here to have him deny the evidence bronght out 
before the Lexow Committee ; but he did not. An effort was 
made to show that the letter was among the papers and had been 
subsequently abstracted ; but we have the evidence of Mr. Moss, 



16 

and I think lie was telling the exact truth, to the effect that 
M'hen those papers were put in his hands, when he first went 
there (not at a subsequent time), there was no such letter as 
that of Judge White amongst them ; no such letter there. Does 
anybody doubt that Mr. Moss is telling the truth about the mat- 
ter ^ lie says he saw all the papers. He tells you of the 
trouble they had in looking them up. lie says he went there, 
reluctantly, to investigate about that matter because of his pleas- 
ant personal relations with Mr. Andrews, but the matter had 
been brought to the attention of Mr. Goff. He went there to 
see what was in it. All the papers were produced ; they were 
put in his hands for the first time — these two witnesses swear 
that he examined them all carefully — and he says he did, and 
tliat there was no letter of Judge White's amongst them ; and 
that if there had been any such letter of Judge White's amongst 
them, he would never have stood by (and neither would any 
other honorable man), and let the impression prevail that Mr. 
Andrews had sworn falsely; he would have come out as an hon- 
orable man and would have said — " I saw the letter of Judge 
White when I went up there " — either such a letter, or a letter 
purporting to be Judge White's. 

I say the evidence shows conclusively that there was no such 
letter of Judge White's in those papers. And why should the 
letter of Judge White, if it was there, have been abstracted be- 
fore the time that Mr. Moss went up there ? Nobody had heard 
anything about this matter : nobody knew that this charge was 
to be made against Andrews. Nobody suspected what the Tom- 
linsons were to do. . This lawyer went there as any other lawyer 
would go, any other honest num, a friend of Companion An- 
drews, a man with whom he had the most pleasant relations — 
went there simply to do his duty, to find out what papers were 
there ; and can there be any doubt that when all those papers 
relating to those cases which he had gone there to examine were 
put in his hands lie would have carefully looked over each paper 
to see what it was ? He says there was no such letter of Judge 
White's amongst the papers ; and I say, in the face of his state- 
ments, that the statements of the other witnesses (one of whom 
made a list of the papers and then conveniently lost it) are un- 
worthy of belief. 



17 

We can see, if we look, some reason, I think, wliy these men 
wanted to produce snch an impression as that. Tliere is some- 
thing which we call reform in the air in the city of JSiew York, 
and every Tammany official is trembling in' his slioes. Most of 
ns think that the fears they are entertaining are righteous fears,, 
and that they have good cause for trembling. There is an im- 
pression all round about, that there is rascality permeating every 
department of the city of New York from top to bottom ; and a 
great many people think that the only way of reforming or 
curing this evil is to begin with a new set of brooms, and see if 
we cannot sweep clean. I can understand why these people 
should come here before you, and, for the purpose of shielding 
one of tlieir number, should be willing to swear that they saw a 
paper with '' Police Court" on the top of it, and a signature that 
looked like Judge White's : that they believe, after examining 
the hon3!^t signatures of Judge White, that were produced here, 
was the signature of Judge White on the letter they say was 
there. Nobody swears positively about it. It is all inference. 

I say that, upon the evidence in the case, upon the theory that 
the first specification has been proved — if you believe the Tom- 
linson story — then you must necessarily believe the other story. 
It follows as the night follows the day. 

AS TO THE THIKD SPECIFICATION. 

That refers to the matter of borrowing money from contract- 
ors of the city. It is not necessary for me to occupy much time 
in regard to that. Companion Andrews admits the main facts. 
He testified before the Lexow Committee, and he has reasserted 
the fact here, that he did horrow from Thomas J. Dunn, avIio 
was a contractor for the city, as he believes (and if he believes 
it and then borrows from him, it does not make any difference 
whether he was a contractor or not ; the underlying principle is 
the same). I do not care whether Dunn was a contractor or 
whether the other man was a contractor ; if Andrews had reason 
to believe he was a contractor, and borrowed money from him, 
then the offence, whatever it is, is committed. The only thing 
that remains in doubt about that question, in the mind of Com- 
panion Andrews (but I do not think there is any doubt about it 



18 

in tlie minds of any of the members of the Board), is, was this 
man from whom he borrowed this second thousand dollars really 
a contractor for the city ? 

The evidence in the case shows tliat he owned five out of the 
seven stables used by the Street Cleaning Department. There 
were lai"ge amounts of repairs to be made on those stables from 
time to time, all to be recommended by the Commissioner of 
the Street Cleaning Department. The whole question of such 
repairs for the purpose of keeping them in the condition they 
were in depended upon /ris will. And while it is true that the 
contracts were not made by him personally, they la&re Diade for 
the use of his department, the Department of Street Cleaning, 
of which he was the head. And I do not care who made it, 
whether it was the Comptroller, or the Board of Audit, or the 
Mayor, or Companion Andrews, the Commissioner. There is 
not any doubt but that that man did own all those stables. The 
evidence is clear about it, and it is further clear that he was, in 
some way or other, a contractor in relation to the scows in the 
Lower Bay, under control of the Street Cleaning Department. 

I do not think Companion Andrews is quite straight-forward 
in his testimony about those scows. He might just as well have 
admitted what is the plain fact, but he somehow seemed to avoid 
the efforts I made to induce him to say whether that was a con- 
tract ; and Companion Hughes, in his questions, applied the 
touchstone to that sort of thing and showed what it was, because 
Companion Andrews admitted in reply to those questions that 
the payment for those scows was made through his dejiartment 
and it was necessary for him to know about the matter. 

And, wdiether hired by a proposal or an agreement made 
through him or somebody else, why, it is a mere subterfuge to 
say that is not a contract. Every lawyer knows and every man 
of sense knows that a contract may either be verbal or may be 
in writing or otherwise, but it is a contract all the same, and all 
you have got to do is to prove it in some way or other. If the 
law says you have got to prove it in a certain way, then you 
must. If the law is silent, then you can prove it in any other 
way. You can produce the letter proposing it, you can produce 
the letter accepting it, and those two, taken together, would form 
■what the law says is a contract. That is what constitutes a con- 



19 

tract. You may infer a contract, as yon always do in suits for 
the breacli of the contract of marriage, from the circumstances 
of the case. It may be an implied contract. There are numer- 
ous kinds of implied contracts. The books are full of them. 
The definition is perfectly clear. The question sometimes arises 
as to what constitutes an implied contract and what constitutes 
an actual contract, but there is never any doubt but that it is 
either an implied contract or an express conti-act. And any 
arrangement made by the City, or by the Street Cleaning 
Department, or by any department of the city of wliicli Com- 
panion Andrews had any control whatever, with any individual, 
was a contract within the meaning of this specification ; and the 
man who occupied that relation by virtue of that agreement, 
whatever it was, was a contractor. 

It seems to me that is too clear for any further argument. 

We nov/ come to the fourth specification. 

AS TO THE FOFKTH SPECIFICATIOK 

What are the facts about that '? This man Toplanyi and Cap- 
tain Andrews had been comrades together in the war. They 
were bound to each other by the feeling of comradeship which 
we all entertain towards each other. This old man had gotten 
into bad habits. He was a man of fine education, of fine natural 
qualities, of good family in his native land, Hungary ; one of 
those who sympathized and sulfered with Kossuth, the leader of 
the Hungarian revolution. He belonged to that band of heroes 
who w^ere brouglit here at the expense of this country by the 
American frigate, the Mississippi, which was sent to bring them 
from Turkey. When they arrived here Kossuth seemed to take 
our hearts by storm ; he seemed to have the whole country in 
his grasp. They had run Kussuth-mad, by reason of his suffer- 
ings and services in the Hungarian revolt against Austria, and 
when Captain Ingraham demanded the return of that hero, 
Martin Kosta, from the hands of those Austrians (in which de- 
mand my friend Admiral Braine and I as two of Ingraham's 
young officers bore a part), why the whole world rang with 
approbation of his act. Toplanyi was one of those heroes. He 
came over here, and in the time of our national tribulation en- 



20 

listed in the army of tlie United States, and Companion An- 
drews and he were thus brought together. 

This man, finally degraded by drink, brought down low in the 
scale, until he has become the poor miserable wretch that Com- 
panion Andrews himself describes him to be, goes up to the 
Soldiers' Home at Bath, N. Y., and while there, through the 
chaplain, makes an application for a pension. Time rolls by 
and he hears nothing of it. He leaves that place and comes 
down to New" York, and either seeks, or in some manner falls 
into the hands of his old comrade in arms. Companion Andrews, 
who says : '' I will do what I can. 1 am a man of character and 
" standing, and I think I can accomplish something for you," and 
he takes the matter in hand, and in time the result is what ? 

On the 17th day of August, 1883, Companion Andrews wrote 
a lettter, in which, speaking of Toplanyi, Companion x\ndrews 
says to the deputy commissioner of pensions " that he was an 
" ofticer of extraordinary ability, who rendered valuable service 
" and who was liked and respected by his superiors and associ- 
" ates until lie became affected hotJi in mind and hody by the 
" illness and exposure he eoutracted in the army." And then, 
at the close, he says : " I have, as I think you understand, acted 
" as attorney in this case solely to serve an old comrade. I not 
" only have no promise of pay, hut 1 shall not accept any. 
" Whatever he receives will he devoted vjJiolly to his henefit. I 
" have, therefore, the less hesitation in imposing upon your 
" kindness by asking your special attention to the case and 
" urging a speedy settlement. 

" Very truly yours, 

" William S. Andrews." 

0\\ the 17th of August he writes tliat letter. On the ^Oth 
day of Septemher, one month and three days afterward, $3,297.- 
50 of Toplanyi's pension money is put into his hands, or the 
drafts for it, on that application. Wliat do we exj^ect him to 
do? To keep it for Toplanyi, of course, as he had p)^'omisedy 
only a month hefore, he would do. He had urged that as a 
reason why there should be prompt action in the matter. There 
was prompt action. And what did he do with the money ? Let 
Companion Andrews himself answer that question. Here is his 



21 

sworn testimony, given before the City Court : "Q. You are 
" one of the defendants in tliis action ? A. I am. Q. You 
'■'■ received the inoneij^%-)250,froin Alexanders. Toplanyif A. 
^^ I did. Q. Ahout what time f A. Onthe Wth of Septemher, 
'' 1885. Q. Of the %S2oO which you received, 'what hecame of 
^^it? A. I applied it to my oton business. It happened, at the 
" time I received the money that 1 was engaged in the inanvfac- 
'■'■ turing hnsiness,and I had immediate tise for money, and I 
^'' paid it out within three or four days from the time I received 
" it, the whole of it. Q. Paid it out for your own purposes? 
" A. For my oivn 2?>frposes, exclusively .'''' 

That is what he did with it. Instead of putting it in a safe 
place, in a Ijank, in some place where he could have it ready at 
hand when Toplanyi, his old comrade, needed it, as a month ago 
he said he was going to do; in fact he devotes it at once and im- 
mediately to his oum necessities in his own hasiness. I do not 
care what the motive was by which he took this money away 
from this old man ; he took it and devoted it to his own Imsiness. 

I am free to admit that, possil)]y at that time, he had the pur- 
pose in his heart — I liope he had — to keep it safe and let the 
old man have it when the time came — to keep it safe for his old 
comrade. I am M'illing to believe that that was his motive at 
the time he took that money. But the devil got into his heart, 
in my judgment, then and there; and when the necessities of his 
business had swallowed it up, and he could not pay it back, or, 
for some reason, became unwilling to pay it back ; then he went 
to work to see what offset he could make ; and then turned up all 
these little papers specifying amounts he claims he had advanced 
to Toplanyi during those two years, amounting to $1772. Why, 
he says, he had given Toplanyi during those two years a dollar a 
day for his board and |2,50 a w^eek for his room, making $9.50 
a week. You can get pretty good board in the City of New 
York for that amount. But that only amounted in those tivo 
years to $998. It was not $1772. It was a little less than a 
thousand dollars and $772 still remained. But worse than that 
remained. 

Finding some necessity for giving himself a larger credit for 
sums advanced, upon some pretext or another, he makes a charge 
against this old man of $250 for typewriters and other expenses 



22 

incurred in the prosecution of liis claim, &c. , for pension. I do 
not know what the typewriter's bill is going to be here. It may 
be $250 here, but ju^t look at the pile of testimony we have. t^SO 
for typewriters in the ])roseciition of a claim for pension! I 
do not know where the typev;riting went to. There is no $250 
worth of typewriting among the Records in Washington. 

Gentlemen, there is no question about these facts. It is Com- 
panion Andreios' oion statement of the case. That he (jot this 
money, thitt he tool' $3yio0 of it and put it into his business, 
and used it for his own purposes within two or three days from, 
the time he received it, there is no question ahout. He cannot 
deny it, for he has sworn to it over and over again ; but he says 
the old man gave it to him — made him a gift of it. 

Do you believe that story? 

We have these damaging facts. Then followed, after that, 
demands, demands and demands on the part of the old man and 
of the creditors of the old man ; suits at law, various efforts to 
make Companion Andrews disgorge this money he had received. 
He defeated them all in the way, as shown. He says here now 
that he rests his defence in the Toplanyi matter on the investi- 
gations that were made. There were four made by officers sent 
from the Pension ollice, and every one of the four dem,onstrated 
the fact, and reported that he had violated the law of the United 
States in taking this money. There was no diversity of opinion 
about it, between the Examiners, down to the very last man, Mr. 
Patterson. Finally the matter got into the hands of the officers 
of the law, for prosecution ; and when they came to investigate 
the facts, they said they thought that, if the case was to be tried 
by the strict rules of the criminal law of the country, no convic- 
tion would follow. He says he rests his case upon those opin- 
ions of the law officers. He produces here letters from Pension 
Examiners at Washington, Law officers there, and the District 
Attorney here. They do not touch on the merits of the case 
at all. Read those opinions, the opinion even of Mr Pat- 
terson, who recommended that no prosecution should be had, 
though he found Companion Andrews had been guilty of viola- 
tion of law. He said he could not be con Dieted because, he says 
the evidence shows (see Andrews' testinujny) that Andrews had 
paid back all the money. It all rests u})on the truth of Com- 



23 

panion Andrews' testimony ; but here, gentlemen, you are to try 
that fact yourselves to-nujld. Is this statement true '. Is it pos- 
sible that he would have put into the hands of such a man as he 
describes that man Toplanyi to be, $1,742 of money out of his 
own pocket in tM"o years— advanced it to him — to sav nothing; of 
the $250 he claims to have expended for typewriters i A poor, 
miserable, drunken old fellow, whose mind had been impaired 
by his suffering under the flag, and in behalf of the Union in 
the days of the comradeship — the real conn*adeship— between 
these two men. 

That is about all there is in the Toplanyi matter. Andrews 
has told the same story, substantially, right straight through. 
Old Toplanyi, if you read his evidence given on various occa- 
8ions,you will find has lied, and he admits he had lied ; but he 
gives a reason for lying, viz., to shield Andrews in these various 
investigations. He went down to his grave, with his last sworn 
statement made before Commissioner Patterson, to the effect 
that Companion Andrews owed him then $2,500, or thereabouts, 
of his pension money. With his last dying breath, so to speak, 
we have his denial of the statement that any such sum was paid 
back to him as Andrews had claimed ; and I say it is altogether 
improbable that Companion Andrews, or any other man in his 
senses, would have advanced to a poor, miserable, half-drunken 
vagabond as he says that man was —would have advanced to him 
the sum of $1,772 in two years without any assurance that he 
would get it back. It is utterly incredible ; I cannot believe it. 

Mr. Commander and Companion : 

J^othing has afforded me more sorrow than t(> be the unwit- 
ting instrument of this prosecution. I am free to say that if I 
had any idea to what extent it would have gone, the trouble it 
would have caused you and me, I would have allowed some- 
body else to draft the charge. But I did what I thought was a 
duty. I have done what I think has been my duty in presenting 
those facts to you as I have presented them, and as I see them ; 
and honestly see them. It is your duty to say whether these 
charges have been sustained. If this man, in your judgment, is 
innocent of all these things alleged against him, I say, in God's 
name say so. It is your duty to say so, in unequivocal terms ; 



24 



because, if coiiipanioDsliip means anything, it nieanvs that we 
shall stand shoulder to shoulder and heart to heart nnder all 
circumstances, whether the winds blow foul or fair. I do not 
eai-e what public opinion says about one of onr number, if we 
think he has been wrongfully and dishonestly dealt with, we 
should my so and stand hi/ him. But, on the other hand we 
must remember that the man who soils the button of the Loyal 
Legion is deserving of any punishment we can mete out to him.. 
The only punishment you can mete out is to recommend to the 
Commandery, that he shall be turned out of the order. 

I feel satisfied that you will do your duty in that respect as 
solemnly and as fearlessly as you will do it in the other respect 
if you are convinced that he has been wronged. 

And, now, in the language of tlie old law I say, "Let the 
prisoner look upon the jury," and, as we go forth to-night, I 
am willing to pray for liim, as the old law used to pray for the 
criminal before the bar : 

''^ May God grant him. a safe delimrance^'' 



Charge and Specifications of Charge, pkeferked 
AGAINST William S. Andrews, a Companion of 
THE New YopvK Commandery of the Military 
Order of the Loyal Legion of the United 
States, by James Parker, also a Companion of 
SAID Commandery and Order: 

Charge. 
(Sustained by the Board of Officers.) 
Conduct unbecoming a geutleman, and a Companion of 
the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United 
States. 

Specification First. 

(This Specification sustained by the Board of Officers.) 
In this, that the said William S. Andrews, on or about 
the 16th day of September, 1887 (he being then and at all 
times mentioned in this Specification), a Companion of the 
Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, 
and also one of the Board of Commissioners of Excise of 
the City of New York, duly apxoojnted and sworn as such 
(which Board, was charged with the duty of licensing 
hotels, restaurants, and saloons in said city), having, as one 
of said Board, refused the application of one Louise 
Chaude for a license for a certain house kept by her at No. 
161 Lexington avenue, and known as " Maison Tortoni," 
because said "Maison Tortoni" was of well-known bad 
character as a disorderly house, and said Louise Chaude 
was known to be a woman of bad reputation, and was at 
the time of said refusal under bonds upon the charge of 
keei)ing said " Maison Tortoni" as a disorderly house ; 
and having afterwards, to wit : on or about the 21st day of 
October, 1887, as such Commissioner of Excise refused to 
vote for the license of said ' ' Maison Tortoni ' ' in the name 
of one Lambertz, because said Lambertz was known to said 
Andrews, to be the book-keeper for said Louise Chaude ; 
did afterwards, on or about the 21st day of December, 
1887, corruptly, and because of a payment of Five Hundred 
Dollars, made to him, said Andrews, by said Louise 



Cliaude, consent to, and urge and procure, the license by- 
said Board of said "Maison Tortoni" in the name of one 
August L. Louis, a butcher then doing business as such at 
No. 265 Tliird avenue (upon a pretended bill ol: sale of the 
said "Maison Tortoni," pur2:)orting to be from said Louise 
Chaude to said August L. Louis), although he, said Andrews, 
well knew that said Louis Avas not the owner and keeper of 
said "Maison Tortoni," but that the same was still owned 
and kept and was intended to be kept thereafter by said 
Louise Chaude, and not by said A. L. Louis, and that said 
A. L. Louis had no interest therein whatsoever. 

Specificatiojst Second. 
(Not Sustained by the Board of Officers.) 

In this, that said William S. Andrews, on or about the 
twenty-first day of December, 1887, he being then a Com- 
panion of the New York Commandery of the Military Or- 
der of the Loyal Legion of the United States, and also one 
of the Board of Commissioners of Excise of the City of 
New York, charged with the duty of licensing hotels, res- 
taurants and saloons in said City ; and having twice pre- 
viously refused a license to said "Maison Tortoni" as 
stated in the specification first above, in order to induce the 
other members of said Board to consent to grant a license 
to said August L. Louis as the owner and keeper of said 
" MaisonTortoni," which, he said, Andrews then well knew, 
still bore the character of a disorderly house, and was still 
kept by said Louise Chaude (whose license had been twice 
before refused as aforesaid), did endorse the application of 
said August L. Louis for license of said " Maison Tortoni " 
as follows : 

' ' The applicant in this case is a respectable merchant, 
" doing business at No. 265 Third avenue. He wishes to 
" conduct this place (meaning said ' Maison Tortoni') as a 
" boarding house and restaurant. He is personally vouched 
" for by Judge Andrew J. White. There is no reason why 
"this i^lace (meaning 'Maison Tortoni') should not be 
" licensed to a respectable jDerson to do a respectable busi- 
" ness, the former licensee having no connection with the 



I 



" place, as appears by the affidavit attached," and did 
sign his initials " W. S. A." to said endorsement. 

Whereas, the said William S. Andrews, at the time of 
making said endorsement, well knew that said Judge 
Andrew J. White had not vouched for said applicant, 
August L. Louis, personally or in any other manner ; and 
farther well knew that the statement contained in said 
affidavit, viz., that the "former licensee," to wit, said 
Louise Chaude, whose applications for license of said 
"Maison Tortoni" had been by said Andrews already 
twice refused because of the bad character of the house, 
and of said Louise Chaude, "had no connection with the 
place," was false ; and well knew that said Louise Chaude 
was still the proprietress of said "Maison Tortoni," and 
was then keeping and intending to continue keeping said 
"Maison Tortoni" in the same manner as she had always 
theretofore done ; and well knew that the character of said 
"Maison Tortoni" and of its proprietress, Louise Chaude, 
had not changed, since he, said Andrews, had refused to 
license said "Maison Tortoni," because of the bad 
character of the said place, and of said Louise Chaude, its 
proprietor. 

Specification Third. 

(Sustained by the Board of Officers.) 

In this, that the said William S. Andrews on or about the 
day of , 1893, he then being a Companion of 

the New York Comm^ndery in the Militar^^ Order of the 
Loyal Legion of the United States, and also a Street Com- 
missioner of the City of New York, and charged as such 
Commissioner with the duty of enforcing the i)erformance 
of contracts made by or on behalf of the Street Cleaning De- 
partment of the said City, did borrow from one Thomas J. 
Dunn, a contractor of the City of New York, the sum of 
$1,000, and subsequently, for the purpose of paying off the 
said loan to said Thomas J. Dunn, did corruptly accept 
from one George W. Plunkitt, who was then a contractor 
with and owing duty to the Street Cleaning Department of 
the City of New York, and whose contracts it was the duty 



of said William S. Andrews as Street Commissioner to re- 
qnire the fulfillment and performance of, the snm of $1,000 
upon j)retense that it was a loan to be repaid, bnt without 
any agreement or understanding as to repayment of said 
money at any time, and which said snm had not been repaid 
at the time said William S. Andrews testified on the fourth 
of December, 1894, before the so-called Lexow Committee 
of the Legislature of the State of New York. 

Specification Fourth. 
(Sustained by the Board of Officers.) 

In this, that the said William S. Andrews, on or about 
the 20th day of September A. D. 1885, he then being a 
Companion of the New York Commandery of the Military 
Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, and hav- 
ing theretofore, as attorney for one Alexander S. Topi any i, 
procured a pension for said Toj^lanyi, did procure, advise 
and persuade said pensioner to endorse and assign to him, 
said Andrews, a certain draft or drafts for arrears of pen- 
sion due said pensioner, amounting to the sum of $3,250 or 
thereabouts, drawn by the U. S. Pension Agent to the 
order of said x^ensioner, upon promise and pretence made 
by said Andrews to said pensioner that he, said Andrews, 
would safely keep the said amount for said pensioner, and 
repay the same to said pensioner or his order when said 
payment should be by said pensioner demanded, and did 
thereafter refuse to pay said moneys to said pensioner 
though payment was demanded, and did appropriate to 
his own use a large amount of said moneys, to wit, the sum 
of $2,500 or thereabouts, and did not repay the same to 
said pensioner up to the time of his death, and has not 
paid the same to the legal representatives or heirs of said 
pensioner. 

JAMES PARKER, 
Companion N. Y. Commandery, 

M. 0. L. L. U. S. 

Dated April 3, 1895. 



i 



l^^QSCi 



OF 



\ 



012 



196 



63® 



